Hey M, welcome to The Racket. Imagine my surprise when i clicked on my email and saw a name unrecognized. Susan used to fill in the more feminine side of the discussion, so it's good/great to hear a woman;s perspective on something as far removed as abortion rights and the Law. Though i do admit to being infatuated by Kim Wehle at the Bulwark.
Anyway, as an Arizonian, by way of MN, i've always been miffed by the odd balls dotting the republican party in this state. The fact nothing has been removed is living testament to how obtuse they are as a group. Of course these days politics is little more than sound bites and fund raising. Lord forbid anyone of them should act as legislators or statesmen.
The abortion issue may well be the fulcrum in the 2024 election. Putting this question on the ballot will drive the turnout in ways trump et al will hate. Best now the orange guy start bemoaning the hoax perpetrated by Antifa and the FBI by rigging the states shoving this down our throats...or more appropriately up our Fallopian tube?
Again, welcome. Really? A cat? Dog lovers of the world unite. Kidding; just don't tell me you have 12 of them.
Great piece to highlight what happens when you leave “rights” resting upon legal precedents alone.
High time to make these GOP legislators come out of their closets and take a public stand on these things….and see how state voters feel about them in 2024.
This legislation doesn’t require states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, states currently have to do that because the Supreme Court decided that not issuing those licenses violates the U.S. Constitution. But if that decision is overruled by a right-wing court, it’s harder to force states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
This law gets partially around the problem by requiring that thoe states recognize marriages that were entered into someplace else – but that creates barriers for people who don’t have money to travel in order to get married somewhere else. In a small state like New Jersey that’s adjacent to a lot of other states, it can be hard to imagine why this would be a big deal. But imagine if you’re low-income and live in the middle of a large, conservative state like Texas. This hole in the legislation turns into a real economic justice problem, where poor people can’t access the rights they’re allegedly entitled to because they simply can’t afford the costs of access.
Yeah, not a perfect bill by any means but better than the status quo ante.
Ostensibly *someone* within a state would be willing to do so, so in the case of another Kim Davis another clerk can issue a marriage certificate. And in the event that one is entirely blocked from getting married within one state and does not have the means to travel - a remote marriage option will fill that niche (upload government IDs, have a Zoom/etc.. ceremony, get certificate).
If you believe that, at some point a fetus is a person, then the 14th Amendment should apply. I do. Any Federal action should be directed toward defining when that point is reached.
Yes, we have. I give you a lot of credit for having a logical reason for your views. I have no medical qualifications to argue the point. I do feel that if it's going to be a national policy, 50% might be pushing it. I would lean toward the minimum - a safety factor if you will. There will never be unanimity on this issue.
You could argue that the 24 week limit for voluntary abortions, with the usual exceptions (and the actual medical conditions that apply should be specified) afterwards, is the minimum - as it's entirely dependent on the presence of advanced medical technology.
I assume a law could be written to have that limit evaluated periodically as tech advances - but perhaps it's just best to be explicit.
Viability in the dictionary means, "able to work successfully." Certainly a child in the womb doesn't fit this definition. But neither does a newborn. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to prove viability of a 5 year old under the definition. Therefore, viability needs to be eliminated from the argument. The FACT is, a baby, from the moment of conception, is a human being and it cannot be denied. No woman has ever given birth to a Buick.
I'm mostly on your side but absolutism will never win. There must be exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and unviable fetuses as long as women have voting rights.
Au contraire: viability in terms of fetal development means a 50% chance of survival outside the mother's womb. Naturally, that is ~32 weeks of development: with access to advanced medical technology, it's ~24 weeks.
Viability means not needing a direct connection to the mother's blood supply for sustenance: their systems are taking care of themselves, with the standard care a newborn requires (which could of course be provided by a father or other unrelated person via formula and the like).
Hence the difference in outcomes depending on access to advanced medical technologies.
LMAO that last point about gay marriage... classic Dem strategy. Allow completely preventable outcomes to materialize, feign shock, campaign/fundraise on the resulting outrage.
After Obergefell, I went round and round with friends on Facebook. I kept stating repeatedly "I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to the Supreme Court inventing a 'right' that did not exist 5 minutes ago." But they just kept saying "How can you oppose gay marriage?" I DON'T! Put it on the ballot here tomorrow and I'll vote in favor of it! But what 5 guys in black robes giveth, 5 guys (and gals) in black robes can taketh away tomorrow.
Democrats held POTUS, the Senate, and the House for 4 of the last 20 years: 2009-2010, and 2021-2022. There were still a large number of conservative Democrats in the party during that first 2-year period, where the focus was the ACA (which barely passed) and for which there was no supermajority supportive of passing a gay marriage bill (or abortion, for that matter).
Obergefell v Hodges was 2015.
The second 2-year period saw passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which does codify gay marriage.
They still sat on a SCOTUS decision with a shaky legal foundation (privacy) for 40 years with Roe, despite numerous warnings from the left, despite conservatives' brazenly public campaign to overturn it for most of that period.
That's a fair criticism if there was ever a period where there was in fact enough support to pass such a law solely within the Democratic Party during periods where they controlled POTUS/Senate/House. Ostensibly that period only arose post-2010, with the first opportunity with that required support coming in 2021.
It's possible there was a time prior that could have involved a bipartisan agreement to do so, but I think that's not the case.
Sometimes you only get the support you need through initiative, leadership, and courage. Dems sorely lack these qualities. To be fair to them, our political system inclines representatives to be stubbornly reactionary, and mass media has only magnified the impulse. They're just players in a game that transcends them. But the results are predictable and disappointing.
Hey M, welcome to The Racket. Imagine my surprise when i clicked on my email and saw a name unrecognized. Susan used to fill in the more feminine side of the discussion, so it's good/great to hear a woman;s perspective on something as far removed as abortion rights and the Law. Though i do admit to being infatuated by Kim Wehle at the Bulwark.
Anyway, as an Arizonian, by way of MN, i've always been miffed by the odd balls dotting the republican party in this state. The fact nothing has been removed is living testament to how obtuse they are as a group. Of course these days politics is little more than sound bites and fund raising. Lord forbid anyone of them should act as legislators or statesmen.
The abortion issue may well be the fulcrum in the 2024 election. Putting this question on the ballot will drive the turnout in ways trump et al will hate. Best now the orange guy start bemoaning the hoax perpetrated by Antifa and the FBI by rigging the states shoving this down our throats...or more appropriately up our Fallopian tube?
Again, welcome. Really? A cat? Dog lovers of the world unite. Kidding; just don't tell me you have 12 of them.
Thank you! I maxed out at 4 cats, but I'm reduced to just one now.
Great piece to highlight what happens when you leave “rights” resting upon legal precedents alone.
High time to make these GOP legislators come out of their closets and take a public stand on these things….and see how state voters feel about them in 2024.
Great to see Merrie writing
Thank you! I've got a lot of thoughts but I've been so busy dealing with personal issues.
Gay marriage is in fact codified under The Respect for Marriage Act, passed and signed into law in 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act
Well, yes and no:
This legislation doesn’t require states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, states currently have to do that because the Supreme Court decided that not issuing those licenses violates the U.S. Constitution. But if that decision is overruled by a right-wing court, it’s harder to force states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
This law gets partially around the problem by requiring that thoe states recognize marriages that were entered into someplace else – but that creates barriers for people who don’t have money to travel in order to get married somewhere else. In a small state like New Jersey that’s adjacent to a lot of other states, it can be hard to imagine why this would be a big deal. But imagine if you’re low-income and live in the middle of a large, conservative state like Texas. This hole in the legislation turns into a real economic justice problem, where poor people can’t access the rights they’re allegedly entitled to because they simply can’t afford the costs of access.
Yeah, not a perfect bill by any means but better than the status quo ante.
Ostensibly *someone* within a state would be willing to do so, so in the case of another Kim Davis another clerk can issue a marriage certificate. And in the event that one is entirely blocked from getting married within one state and does not have the means to travel - a remote marriage option will fill that niche (upload government IDs, have a Zoom/etc.. ceremony, get certificate).
At least one of those Wisconsin democrats is leaving the bench.
I saw that today after this posted. Wisconsin will end up in the exact same position Arizona is in now.
Just to chime in: An Abortion ban should be a national issue since the Constitution has outlawed it since 1869...
If you believe that, at some point a fetus is a person, then the 14th Amendment should apply. I do. Any Federal action should be directed toward defining when that point is reached.
As we've previously discussed, viability is a pretty good line for that.
Yes, we have. I give you a lot of credit for having a logical reason for your views. I have no medical qualifications to argue the point. I do feel that if it's going to be a national policy, 50% might be pushing it. I would lean toward the minimum - a safety factor if you will. There will never be unanimity on this issue.
Agreed there never will be unanimous agreement.
You could argue that the 24 week limit for voluntary abortions, with the usual exceptions (and the actual medical conditions that apply should be specified) afterwards, is the minimum - as it's entirely dependent on the presence of advanced medical technology.
I assume a law could be written to have that limit evaluated periodically as tech advances - but perhaps it's just best to be explicit.
Viability in the dictionary means, "able to work successfully." Certainly a child in the womb doesn't fit this definition. But neither does a newborn. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to prove viability of a 5 year old under the definition. Therefore, viability needs to be eliminated from the argument. The FACT is, a baby, from the moment of conception, is a human being and it cannot be denied. No woman has ever given birth to a Buick.
I'm mostly on your side but absolutism will never win. There must be exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and unviable fetuses as long as women have voting rights.
Absolutism will never work? Tell that to the 3-5% of the colonists who fought for independence from the British.
Au contraire: viability in terms of fetal development means a 50% chance of survival outside the mother's womb. Naturally, that is ~32 weeks of development: with access to advanced medical technology, it's ~24 weeks.
No newborn has viability. The mother still has to nurture it and care for it or it dies. Simple as that.
Viability means not needing a direct connection to the mother's blood supply for sustenance: their systems are taking care of themselves, with the standard care a newborn requires (which could of course be provided by a father or other unrelated person via formula and the like).
Hence the difference in outcomes depending on access to advanced medical technologies.
LMAO that last point about gay marriage... classic Dem strategy. Allow completely preventable outcomes to materialize, feign shock, campaign/fundraise on the resulting outrage.
After Obergefell, I went round and round with friends on Facebook. I kept stating repeatedly "I am not opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to the Supreme Court inventing a 'right' that did not exist 5 minutes ago." But they just kept saying "How can you oppose gay marriage?" I DON'T! Put it on the ballot here tomorrow and I'll vote in favor of it! But what 5 guys in black robes giveth, 5 guys (and gals) in black robes can taketh away tomorrow.
Democrats held POTUS, the Senate, and the House for 4 of the last 20 years: 2009-2010, and 2021-2022. There were still a large number of conservative Democrats in the party during that first 2-year period, where the focus was the ACA (which barely passed) and for which there was no supermajority supportive of passing a gay marriage bill (or abortion, for that matter).
Obergefell v Hodges was 2015.
The second 2-year period saw passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which does codify gay marriage.
Fair.
They still sat on a SCOTUS decision with a shaky legal foundation (privacy) for 40 years with Roe, despite numerous warnings from the left, despite conservatives' brazenly public campaign to overturn it for most of that period.
That's a fair criticism if there was ever a period where there was in fact enough support to pass such a law solely within the Democratic Party during periods where they controlled POTUS/Senate/House. Ostensibly that period only arose post-2010, with the first opportunity with that required support coming in 2021.
It's possible there was a time prior that could have involved a bipartisan agreement to do so, but I think that's not the case.
Sometimes you only get the support you need through initiative, leadership, and courage. Dems sorely lack these qualities. To be fair to them, our political system inclines representatives to be stubbornly reactionary, and mass media has only magnified the impulse. They're just players in a game that transcends them. But the results are predictable and disappointing.